This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 24, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathBinarySwitch.cpp
More file actions
411 lines (359 loc) · 17.4 KB
/
BinarySwitch.cpp
File metadata and controls
411 lines (359 loc) · 17.4 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
/*
* Copyright (C) 2013-2019 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE INC. ``AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
* PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE INC. OR
* CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
* EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
* PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
* PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY
* OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
* OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*/
#include "config.h"
#include "BinarySwitch.h"
#if ENABLE(JIT)
#include <wtf/ListDump.h>
namespace JSC {
namespace BinarySwitchInternal {
static constexpr bool verbose = false;
}
static unsigned globalCounter; // We use a different seed every time we are invoked.
BinarySwitch::BinarySwitch(GPRReg value, const Vector<int64_t>& cases, Type type)
: m_type(type)
, m_value(value)
, m_weakRandom(globalCounter++)
, m_index(0)
, m_caseIndex(UINT_MAX)
{
if (cases.isEmpty())
return;
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("Original cases: ", listDump(cases), "\n");
for (unsigned i = 0; i < cases.size(); ++i)
m_cases.append(Case(cases[i], i));
std::sort(m_cases.begin(), m_cases.end());
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("Sorted cases: ", listDump(m_cases), "\n");
#if ASSERT_ENABLED
for (unsigned i = 1; i < m_cases.size(); ++i)
ASSERT(m_cases[i - 1] < m_cases[i], i, m_cases.size(), m_cases[i].value, m_cases[i].index);
#endif
build(0, false, m_cases.size());
}
BinarySwitch::~BinarySwitch()
{
}
bool BinarySwitch::advance(MacroAssembler& jit)
{
if (m_cases.isEmpty()) {
m_fallThrough.append(jit.jump());
return false;
}
if (m_index == m_branches.size()) {
RELEASE_ASSERT(m_jumpStack.isEmpty());
return false;
}
for (;;) {
const BranchCode& code = m_branches[m_index++];
switch (code.kind) {
case NotEqualToFallThrough:
switch (m_type) {
case Int32:
m_fallThrough.append(jit.branch32(
MacroAssembler::NotEqual, m_value,
MacroAssembler::Imm32(static_cast<int32_t>(m_cases[code.index].value))));
break;
case IntPtr:
m_fallThrough.append(jit.branchPtr(
MacroAssembler::NotEqual, m_value,
MacroAssembler::ImmPtr(bitwise_cast<const void*>(static_cast<intptr_t>(m_cases[code.index].value)))));
break;
}
break;
case NotEqualToPush:
switch (m_type) {
case Int32:
m_jumpStack.append(jit.branch32(
MacroAssembler::NotEqual, m_value,
MacroAssembler::Imm32(static_cast<int32_t>(m_cases[code.index].value))));
break;
case IntPtr:
m_jumpStack.append(jit.branchPtr(
MacroAssembler::NotEqual, m_value,
MacroAssembler::ImmPtr(bitwise_cast<const void*>(static_cast<intptr_t>(m_cases[code.index].value)))));
break;
}
break;
case LessThanToPush:
switch (m_type) {
case Int32:
m_jumpStack.append(jit.branch32(
MacroAssembler::LessThan, m_value,
MacroAssembler::Imm32(static_cast<int32_t>(m_cases[code.index].value))));
break;
case IntPtr:
m_jumpStack.append(jit.branchPtr(
MacroAssembler::LessThan, m_value,
MacroAssembler::ImmPtr(bitwise_cast<const void*>(static_cast<intptr_t>(m_cases[code.index].value)))));
break;
}
break;
case Pop:
m_jumpStack.takeLast().link(&jit);
break;
case ExecuteCase:
m_caseIndex = code.index;
return true;
}
}
}
class RandomNumberGenerator {
public:
using result_type = uint32_t;
RandomNumberGenerator(WeakRandom& weakRandom)
: m_weakRandom(weakRandom)
{
}
uint32_t operator()()
{
return m_weakRandom.getUint32();
}
static constexpr uint32_t min() { return std::numeric_limits<uint32_t>::min(); }
static constexpr uint32_t max() { return std::numeric_limits<uint32_t>::max(); }
private:
WeakRandom& m_weakRandom;
};
void BinarySwitch::build(unsigned start, bool hardStart, unsigned end)
{
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("Building with start = ", start, ", hardStart = ", hardStart, ", end = ", end, "\n");
auto append = [&] (const BranchCode& code) {
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("==> ", code, "\n");
m_branches.append(code);
};
unsigned size = end - start;
RELEASE_ASSERT(size);
// This code uses some random numbers to keep things balanced. It's important to keep in mind
// that this does not improve average-case throughput under the assumption that all cases fire
// with equal probability. It just ensures that there will not be some switch structure that
// when combined with some input will always produce pathologically good or pathologically bad
// performance.
const unsigned leafThreshold = 3;
if (size <= leafThreshold) {
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("It's a leaf.\n");
// It turns out that for exactly three cases or less, it's better to just compare each
// case individually. This saves 1/6 of a branch on average, and up to 1/3 of a branch in
// extreme cases where the divide-and-conquer bottoms out in a lot of 3-case subswitches.
//
// This assumes that we care about the cost of hitting some case more than we care about
// bottoming out in a default case. I believe that in most places where we use switch
// statements, we are more likely to hit one of the cases than we are to fall through to
// default. Intuitively, if we wanted to improve the performance of default, we would
// reduce the value of leafThreshold to 2 or even to 1. See below for a deeper discussion.
bool allConsecutive = false;
if ((hardStart || (start && m_cases[start - 1].value == m_cases[start].value - 1))
&& start + size < m_cases.size()
&& m_cases[start + size - 1].value == m_cases[start + size].value - 1) {
allConsecutive = true;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < size - 1; ++i) {
if (m_cases[start + i].value + 1 != m_cases[start + i + 1].value) {
allConsecutive = false;
break;
}
}
}
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("allConsecutive = ", allConsecutive, "\n");
Vector<unsigned, 3> localCaseIndices;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < size; ++i)
localCaseIndices.append(start + i);
std::shuffle(
localCaseIndices.begin(), localCaseIndices.end(),
RandomNumberGenerator(m_weakRandom));
for (unsigned i = 0; i < size - 1; ++i) {
append(BranchCode(NotEqualToPush, localCaseIndices[i]));
append(BranchCode(ExecuteCase, localCaseIndices[i]));
append(BranchCode(Pop));
}
if (!allConsecutive)
append(BranchCode(NotEqualToFallThrough, localCaseIndices.last()));
append(BranchCode(ExecuteCase, localCaseIndices.last()));
return;
}
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("It's not a leaf.\n");
// There are two different strategies we could consider here:
//
// Isolate median and split: pick a median and check if the comparison value is equal to it;
// if so, execute the median case. Otherwise check if the value is less than the median, and
// recurse left or right based on this. This has two subvariants: we could either first test
// equality for the median and then do the less-than, or we could first do the less-than and
// then check equality on the not-less-than path.
//
// Ignore median and split: do a less-than comparison on a value that splits the cases in two
// equal-sized halves. Recurse left or right based on the comparison. Do not test for equality
// against the median (or anything else); let the recursion handle those equality comparisons
// once we bottom out in a list that case 3 cases or less (see above).
//
// I'll refer to these strategies as Isolate and Ignore. I initially believed that Isolate
// would be faster since it leads to less branching for some lucky cases. It turns out that
// Isolate is almost a total fail in the average, assuming all cases are equally likely. How
// bad Isolate is depends on whether you believe that doing two consecutive branches based on
// the same comparison is cheaper than doing the compare/branches separately. This is
// difficult to evaluate. For small immediates that aren't blinded, we just care about
// avoiding a second compare instruction. For large immediates or when blinding is in play, we
// also care about the instructions used to materialize the immediate a second time. Isolate
// can help with both costs since it involves first doing a < compare+branch on some value,
// followed by a == compare+branch on the same exact value (or vice-versa). Ignore will do a <
// compare+branch on some value, and then the == compare+branch on that same value will happen
// much later.
//
// To evaluate these costs, I wrote the recurrence relation for Isolate and Ignore, assuming
// that ComparisonCost is the cost of a compare+branch and ChainedComparisonCost is the cost
// of a compare+branch on some value that you've just done another compare+branch for. These
// recurrence relations compute the total cost incurred if you executed the switch statement
// on each matching value. So the average cost of hitting some case can be computed as
// Isolate[n]/n or Ignore[n]/n, respectively for the two relations.
//
// Isolate[1] = ComparisonCost
// Isolate[2] = (2 + 1) * ComparisonCost
// Isolate[3] = (3 + 2 + 1) * ComparisonCost
// Isolate[n_] := With[
// {medianIndex = Floor[n/2] + If[EvenQ[n], RandomInteger[], 1]},
// ComparisonCost + ChainedComparisonCost +
// (ComparisonCost * (medianIndex - 1) + Isolate[medianIndex - 1]) +
// (2 * ComparisonCost * (n - medianIndex) + Isolate[n - medianIndex])]
//
// Ignore[1] = ComparisonCost
// Ignore[2] = (2 + 1) * ComparisonCost
// Ignore[3] = (3 + 2 + 1) * ComparisonCost
// Ignore[n_] := With[
// {medianIndex = If[EvenQ[n], n/2, Floor[n/2] + RandomInteger[]]},
// (medianIndex * ComparisonCost + Ignore[medianIndex]) +
// ((n - medianIndex) * ComparisonCost + Ignore[n - medianIndex])]
//
// This does not account for the average cost of hitting the default case. See further below
// for a discussion of that.
//
// It turns out that for ComparisonCost = 1 and ChainedComparisonCost = 1, Ignore is always
// better than Isolate. If we assume that ChainedComparisonCost = 0, then Isolate wins for
// switch statements that have 20 cases or fewer, though the margin of victory is never large
// - it might sometimes save an average of 0.3 ComparisonCost. For larger switch statements,
// we see divergence between the two with Ignore winning. This is of course rather
// unrealistic since the chained comparison is never free. For ChainedComparisonCost = 0.5, we
// see Isolate winning for 10 cases or fewer, by maybe 0.2 ComparisonCost. Again we see
// divergence for large switches with Ignore winning, for example if a switch statement has
// 100 cases then Ignore saves one branch on average.
//
// Our current JIT backends don't provide for optimization for chained comparisons, except for
// reducing the code for materializing the immediate if the immediates are large or blinding
// comes into play. Probably our JIT backends live somewhere north of
// ChainedComparisonCost = 0.5.
//
// This implies that using the Ignore strategy is likely better. If we wanted to incorporate
// the Isolate strategy, we'd want to determine the switch size threshold at which the two
// cross over and then use Isolate for switches that are smaller than that size.
//
// The average cost of hitting the default case is similar, but involves a different cost for
// the base cases: you have to assume that you will always fail each branch. For the Ignore
// strategy we would get this recurrence relation; the same kind of thing happens to the
// Isolate strategy:
//
// Ignore[1] = ComparisonCost
// Ignore[2] = (2 + 2) * ComparisonCost
// Ignore[3] = (3 + 3 + 3) * ComparisonCost
// Ignore[n_] := With[
// {medianIndex = If[EvenQ[n], n/2, Floor[n/2] + RandomInteger[]]},
// (medianIndex * ComparisonCost + Ignore[medianIndex]) +
// ((n - medianIndex) * ComparisonCost + Ignore[n - medianIndex])]
//
// This means that if we cared about the default case more, we would likely reduce
// leafThreshold. Reducing it to 2 would reduce the average cost of the default case by 1/3
// in the most extreme cases (num switch cases = 3, 6, 12, 24, ...). But it would also
// increase the average cost of taking one of the non-default cases by 1/3. Typically the
// difference is 1/6 in either direction. This makes it a very simple trade-off: if we believe
// that the default case is more important then we would want leafThreshold to be 2, and the
// default case would become 1/6 faster on average. But we believe that most switch statements
// are more likely to take one of the cases than the default, so we use leafThreshold = 3
// and get a 1/6 speed-up on average for taking an explicit case.
unsigned medianIndex = (start + end) / 2;
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("medianIndex = ", medianIndex, "\n");
// We want medianIndex to point to the thing we will do a less-than compare against. We want
// this less-than compare to split the current sublist into equal-sized sublists, or
// nearly-equal-sized with some randomness if we're in the odd case. With the above
// calculation, in the odd case we will have medianIndex pointing at either the element we
// want or the element to the left of the one we want. Consider the case of five elements:
//
// 0 1 2 3 4
//
// start will be 0, end will be 5. The average is 2.5, which rounds down to 2. If we do
// value < 2, then we will split the list into 2 elements on the left and three on the right.
// That's pretty good, but in this odd case we'd like to at random choose 3 instead to ensure
// that we don't become unbalanced on the right. This does not improve throughput since one
// side will always get shafted, and that side might still be odd, in which case it will also
// have two sides and one of them will get shafted - and so on. We just want to avoid
// deterministic pathologies.
//
// In the even case, we will always end up pointing at the element we want:
//
// 0 1 2 3
//
// start will be 0, end will be 4. So, the average is 2, which is what we'd like.
if (size & 1) {
RELEASE_ASSERT(medianIndex - start + 1 == end - medianIndex);
medianIndex += m_weakRandom.getUint32() & 1;
} else
RELEASE_ASSERT(medianIndex - start == end - medianIndex);
RELEASE_ASSERT(medianIndex > start);
RELEASE_ASSERT(medianIndex + 1 < end);
if (BinarySwitchInternal::verbose)
dataLog("fixed medianIndex = ", medianIndex, "\n");
append(BranchCode(LessThanToPush, medianIndex));
build(medianIndex, true, end);
append(BranchCode(Pop));
build(start, hardStart, medianIndex);
}
void BinarySwitch::Case::dump(PrintStream& out) const
{
out.print("<value: " , value, ", index: ", index, ">");
}
void BinarySwitch::BranchCode::dump(PrintStream& out) const
{
switch (kind) {
case NotEqualToFallThrough:
out.print("NotEqualToFallThrough");
break;
case NotEqualToPush:
out.print("NotEqualToPush");
break;
case LessThanToPush:
out.print("LessThanToPush");
break;
case Pop:
out.print("Pop");
break;
case ExecuteCase:
out.print("ExecuteCase");
break;
}
if (index != UINT_MAX)
out.print("(", index, ")");
}
} // namespace JSC
#endif // ENABLE(JIT)